Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the borough of Barnsley, in the room of John Potts, Esquire, deceased. —[Sir Charles Edwards.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Derwent Valley Water Board Bill.

London County Council (Money) Bill.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-TURKISH TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make in regard to the negotiations which have been taking place with the Turkish Economic Delegation in this country?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I am glad to say that the negotiations have been successfully concluded and three agreements were signed this morning. The texts will be presented to Parliament and will be available shortly.
In the first place, the Export Credits Guarantee Department, after consultation with their Advisory Committee and with the consent of the Treasury, have agreed to give guarantees in connection with the export to Turkey of goods manufactured in the United Kingdom up to a total of £10,000,000, and the first agreement is an agreement between the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Turkish Government relating to these guarantees.
The second agreement is an agreement between the two Governments supplementary to the Trade and Clearing Agreement of 2nd September, 1936. In the negotiations for the Guarantee Agreement, it was made clear to the representatives of the Turkish Government that some improvement in the position of the Anglo-Turkish Clearing was an essential condition to the guarantee of any such credits, and this condition is satisfied by the new Agreement.
Under the Supplementary Agreement, imports from the United Kingdom into Turkey for which payment is provided by the compensatory export of Turkish goods to this country will not be limited, but as from 1st July, 1938, the Turkish Government will arrest the accumulation of fresh arrears by limiting imports for which payment is made through the Clearing so that their value does not exceed £500,000 a year, this being the estimated value of the sterling becoming available to pay for them. Provision is also made for the appropriation of substantial sums to reduce the volume of outstanding arrears.
The third agreement enables Turkish orders for warships and other war material to be placed in this country on credit terms, on the general security of the Republic's programme of economic development, and provides for these credits to be guaranteed by His Majesty's Government. Credits cannot, however, be granted under the Export Guarantees Act in respect of munitions of war, and a special agreement signed subject to Parliamentary approval has, therefore, been necessary. The required legislation will be introduced at the first suitable opportunity.

Mr. Boothby: Will the Prime Minister carry on with this good work?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments from Committee on Group J of Private Bills, (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

Orders of the Day — ROAD HAULAGE WAGES (NO. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Central Board and of Area Boards.)

The Chairman: The first Amendment which I select is that standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead West (Colonel Sandeman Allen), and with that can be discussed the next Amendment, which is in the name of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), who of course will have a right to a separate decision upon his Amendment, if necessary.

11.10 a.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert:
 Provided also that workers employed upon road haulage work by railway companies shall enjoy remuneration and conditions of service not less favourable than other workers employed upon road haulage work.
The object of the Amendment is perfectly clear, and I will not take up time by enlarging upon it, but it does seem necessary to prevent by an agreement upon wages uneconomic competition between the roads and the railways, and I move this Amendment in the hope that we can prevent anything of that kind occurring.

11.11. a.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Of course there will be very little objection from us if that position can be brought about. We hope very much that there will be some relativity, as it were, between the wages and conditions of railway workers and of those employed in what is, after all, a complementary and competitive industry. If something can be done upon those lines we shall welcome it very much.

11.12 a.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I must tell the Committee at once that I cannot accept the Amendment. I need not go into the conclusions come to by the Baillie Committee that the fears which have been expressed are not justified by the facts, because the committee made it clear in various pas-

sages of their report that on any general comparison with the roads, conditions on the railways are not unfavourable, but there is also a major point, which I think the House will appreciate. All interests desire the making of voluntary collective agreements. We wish to make voluntary collective negotiations more and more effective in the industrial and economic life of the country. To assist that object by improving the machinery where it is now defective is one of the major purposes of this Bill, but in attempting to improve what is defective machinery in the road haulage industry we ought not to do anything which would have any adverse effect upon the admirable machinery for collective bargaining in the railway world, and the decision to exclude railway van drivers rests fairly and squarely upon the views of the Baillie Committee. I will quote to the House the following passage, paragraph 70, of their report:
 The facts relating to the regulation of the wages and working conditions of road transport workers employed by the railway companies afford a refreshing contrast to the position existing in the road transport industry generally; and it is not surprising that when the existing National Joint Conciliation Board was constituted no step was taken to include within its scope representatives of the railway companies or their employees. We are of opinion that no departure from this position is called for, and that it would constitute a grave disservice to the principle of settling wages by means of organised voluntary collective bargaining if the present effective machinery for the harmonious settlement of wages by means of the railway machinery of negotiation were disturbed.
I will add two or three words to make it clear what the position is with regard to railways. At the moment railway van drivers are organised in the National Union of Railwaymen and not in a special union. Their rights are fully and adequately safeguarded. Their wages, which it has been pointed out are not unfavourable, according to the Baillie Committee, were regulated by agreement as far back as 1920, which is 18 years ago. Also, the railway machinery is 100 per cent. effective in that decisions arrived at are carried out. I wish I could say the same, and I am sure the Committee do, about the road haulage industry, because if that were the case there would be no need for this Bill. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will see that in the light of those facts any alteration would mean that the Central Board would have to


include railway representation, indeed, a very strong representation. That would have an adverse effect upon the present excellent collective bargaining machinery. For these reasons I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, after "Board," to insert:
and any area board appearing to him to be concerned.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has an Amendment on the Paper, the result of which would be roughly similar to that of the Amendment which I am moving. If the area is to be altered it seems reasonable that the area board should be consulted. The wording of the hon. Member's Amendment would suggest that it was necessary for all area boards to he consulted about a matter which might affect only one. While we appreciate the point, we think that the Amendment which I now move is more appropriate.

Mr. Graham White: I rise only to express my satisfaction with the course taken by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

11.16 a.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to add:
 The constitution of each such new area shall be such as to provide from each area so combined representation not less effective than it obtained before combination.
If hon. Members will look at the proviso on page 2, line 25 of the Bill, they will see that the Minister has power, after consultation with the central board, to combine areas, or to alter their boundaries. Then, if they will refer to the First Schedule, they will see in paragraph 2 a provision in regard to the constitution of the area boards. No doubt when the initial boards are set up, my right hon. Friend will, in the usual and sensible way as is the practice in this country, consult with the interests concerned. One hopes that all parties concerned will be satisfied with the initial personnel of the area boards.

The time may come when, for good reasons, the Minister will use his powers under the proviso to Clause 1, with the result that an area is altered or two areas are combined, and then will arise not only personal difficulties, but difficulties of representation. He might decide for himself: "I will combine two areas, and the board of the new area shall be the same in number as that of a single board." In that case, half the people would have to go. The original board may have been selected in order that rival interests might serve upon it, and in the reorganisation some of those people would be cut out. It has been represented to me that some provision or check upon the Minister's power should be inserted in the Bill so that the efficiency of the representation originally fixed should not be diminished as a result of one of those combinations. It is purely a matter of machinery, the object of which is to secure that difficulties do not arise when combination of areas takes place.

11.19 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I appreciate to the full the desire of my hon. Friend, but the Committee will appreciate that there is not in the Bill any such thing as the constitution of a new area. Alteration of an area, whether by combining it with another area or otherwise, can be done only by order, and the new area would have established for it an area board, the constitution of which is governed by the Second Schedule. In constituting an area board the Minister is bound to consult the organisation and to appoint Members to represent the area. To that extent the Bill as it stands already meets the point of the Amendment. I can assure my hon. Friend that our usual common sense practice will prevail, and that we shall do our very best to see that those concerned are not worse off under the new arrangement.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for his assurance, but I do not think he has quite met my specific point. Assume that there are two areas each with 12 representatives and that you proceed to combine those two areas. At the moment of combination you have 24 members. The new area will be very large and it may well be the case that you cannot give effective representation by an area board of 12 members, yet, having established the board, you are in the


difficulty that you have to apply that principle as to membership.

Mr. Brown: The procedure laid down in the Second Schedule has been adopted. My hon. Friend must not attempt to legislate in advance. He can accept my assurance that I shall see that none of the parties is worse off under the new arrangement.

Mr. Williams: My right hon. Friend is a very reasonable person. I propose to accept his assurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Functions of Central Board and of area boards.)

11.22 a.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, after "workers," to insert "in any district."
This relates to the fixing of wages by district. Conditions in different districts might vary considerably and should be taken into consideration by the Central Board in fixing wages. I think I have made the point clear in those few words.

11.23 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I am bound to tell my hon. and gallant Friend that I think this Amendment is redundant and might be dangerous. From what he tells me, its intention is to make it clear that it is within the power of the Central Board to impose rates of wages upon a district basis. That object is already more secured in this Clause. When the Bill was in preparation, consideration was given to the powers of trade boards to fix rates of wages for workers in special classes or for any special area or any special class in any special area. In other legislation the term "special class" has been found in practice to be much too restricted. The present provision was drafted to allow the Central Board the widest possible latitude, and if the words proposed were inserted there would be a danger that the law courts would be the final authorities in the matter in proposing different wages for different parts of a district. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend would not desire that. The district rate would apply to all haulage workers.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The existing practice in the old Conciliation Board was that in areas of varying conditions there were grades 1, 2 and 3, with the national trunk road rate over the whole, known as the national or trunk rate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to follow the same principle with regard to the newly-constituted Central Board.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: In view of the explanation that my right hon. Friend has given, I have great pleasure in asking permission to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.25 a.m.

Mr. White: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "transmit a draft of its proposals to," and to insert "receive proposals from."
This Amendment raises a question of principle which I think means no explanation. Its effect would really be to make the position which the right hon. Gentleman proposes shall apply in Scotland apply also in England.

11.26 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman has said, this Amendment, and the consequential Amendments which would follow on it, raise a question of principle, and it is one of the very first moment. It proposes to alter the whole structure on which this part of the Bill is based, and to give to the area boards the power of initiation. The Baillie Committee came to the conclusion, seeing that Scotland had always had its own joint industrial council and its own separate methods, that Scotland ought to be given the power of initiation; but to extend that to the whole of the area boards would upset the entire scheme of the Bill, and would in my judgment, in the worst circumstances, prevent what we are all attempting to do. The Baillie Committee, after weighing all the evidence, came to the conclusion that the power of initiation ought to be with the Central Board, and the great majority of those on the national conciliation board agreed with the Baillie Committee in that conclusion, as was ascertained after the most exhaustive conversations.
I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment because the road haulage industry is a mobile one, and its range of


competition is very wide, so that, if we are to have an effective measure of agreement and regulation, we must ensure that the rates of wages in various parts of the country will bear a fair relation to one another. Even if the area boards separately could reach decisions as to the rates for their areas—which is very doubtful, bearing in mind the history of the last five years—it would be necessary to co-ordinate those decisions. The process of co-ordination would inevitably involve adjustments between the various sets of proposals, and the alteration by some other body of decisions reached by separate independent area bodies would not only be difficult, but would be a certain cause of the maximum of friction at the centre. I cannot think that the Committee would desire that, and I am sure that the majority of those in the industry do not desire it. It will surely be a great advantage to have a comprehensive scheme. The Amendment assumes that the area boards will be able to reach decisions, but, as I have already said, experience shows that that is unlikely.
The position now is not as it was in the old voluntary days, when complaint was made that the Central Board did not consult the area boards. The Bill provides amply and with meticulous care that the views of the area boards shall have due weight. They will be represented directly on the Central Board, and organisations of any size will also be represented on the Central Board. Before the Central Board publishes any proposals of the area boards, the draft proposals will have to be considered by the Central Board; and, after the proposals are published, any individual affected by them will be able to object, and the objections will be referred to the area board. Like the Baillie Committee, I have weighed the arguments for this Amendment very carefully, and I am bound to say that in the worst circumstances it might wreck the whole scheme, while at the very best it would only cause the maximum of confusion and friction at the centre.

11.32 a.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: In the case of many Amendments the Mover says as little as he can about them, in the hope of their getting through. The hon.

Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), in moving this Amendment, has merely said that it would have the effect of doing in England what the Scottish board are going to do. The hon. Member is usually most meticulous and shows a complete mastery of details, but on this occasion, perhaps, he thought it would be nicer to say as little as he could. The fact is that, if this Amendment were carried, the Bill as it stands would be immediately changed in every detail. The machinery would be put back exactly where it is to-day, and it is because the machinery of to-day is bad, because in the areas they have been unable to come to agreement on account of the difficulties of boundaries and inter-running arrangements, that the present difficulties have arisen. Even in Scotland, which is separated from this country, experience has shown that the competitive element has developed as between Scottish hauliers running into England and vice versa, and the Scottish people have agreed to come into the scheme while retaining their own separate identity. The method is one of large national conciliation boards and large national agreements, with a Central Board radiating out to the areas and acting after consultation with the area boards. To take away the power of initiation from the Central Board and transfer it to the area boards would make the present confusion worse confounded. I hope the hon. Member will realise that, while he may be doing, as he thinks, a good work for certain areas, yet nationally it would be a bad thing if the Amendment were carried.

Amendment negatived.

11.34 a.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, to leave out from "employers," to the end of the Clause.
I do not think that this reference to voluntary organisations is really necessary, when there is an area board and arrangements other than voluntary are being made with the various organisations. In those circumstances, I cannot see that it is going to help in the least degree to have voluntary organisations coming in.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown: Some employers fear that the Board might use excessive powers to force men to join trade unions.


That is not the intention, nor is it the fact. The fact is that we want to get the most effective machinery we can as between the employers and the employees in the industry. History shows the necessity of doing all we can by persuasion and not compulsion to induce those who do not see their way to organise themselves to do so. The Baillie Committee dealt with the question in their report. They said:
 There is no royal road to industrial organisation. Whether the organisation of an industry arises from within or is brought about by pressure from without, or both, will depend on circumstances; and the type of organisation best suited to an industry must be relative to the nature of the industry itself. The National Board, as previously stated, has by its operation fostered organisation in the haulage industry. The Board should be so constituted that its activities will promote directly and indirectly an increasing interest in the essential condition of effective industrial self-government. Only thus can the industry expect to escape from the present chaos and lay the basis for sound progress in the future.
That states the matter so succinctly that I need say nothing more, except to assure my hon. and gallant Friend and the Committee that the object is to persuade, and not compel. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will not desire to press the Amendment further.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

11.38 a.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: On a point of Order. May I ask, Captain Bourne, that you give some guidance as to which Amendments are going to be called, so that we can be ready?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that is quite impossible, because in so many cases an Amendment in the name of one hon. Member covers a point which is dealt with in an Amendment in the name of another hon. Member. It depends on whether that hon. Member is here, whether I call his Amendment or an Amendment in the name of another hon. Member.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Power to refer questions as
to unfair wages).

11.40 a.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, to leave out from "member" to "considers," in line 23.
This Amendment raises a point of some substance. In the Clause there are three methods proposed by which a grievance regarding the remuneration can be raised. First, there is the case where the employed person himself takes the initiative; next, where the trade union of which he is a member takes the initiative; and thirdly, there is the case which I am proposing to leave out,
 or a trade union which in the opinion of the Minister represents a substantial number of workers employed in road haulage work.
That the man himself should have the right is clearly well established, and that he should have the right to do it through his trade union is clearly well established; but if you are going to authorise a trade union of which he is not a member to do it, the chances are that you will have a good deal of trouble. There was, and still is I think, in existence something known as the cinema strike. A few weeks ago we passed the Cinematograph Films Bill under which, by a certain Amendment, moved I think by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), the industry was stimulated into recognising the trade union of the theatrical and cinema employés. A certain other union, thinking that these people ought to belong to them, proclaimed a strike and sought to intervene regarding the terms of employment of a number of people who did not belong to their union, because they thought it a good opportunity to bring them in. There is a good deal of poaching in the trade union world. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not now!"] What is the use of saying "Not now"? It happened a fortnight ago.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is there none between the employers' organisations?

Mr. Williams: That is irrelevant. We are discussing poaching between trade unions. It is very undesirable that it should continue. We all remember the struggle some years ago between the Workers' Union and the skilled engineers' unions, which had serious consequences. I refer to the moulders' dispute in 1919, which inflicted tremendous damage on this


country just when we were trying to recover from the Great War. I think there is a strong case to be made against giving a statutory right to any organisation of which a person is not a member to intervene on his behalf. We are not raising the issue of the employment of a group of people; we are raising a particular grievance. If these words remain in the Bill it is going, in the long run, to cause a great deal of trouble, due to poaching; and the effect may be to bring about industrial disputes. Even in the well-organised coal-mining industry we have seen the question arise of whether certain people not engaged in the actual physical work of mining but otherwise employed in the industry should be members of the miners' union, and strikes have arisen from that cause. I hope that I shall receive substantial support for the Amendment.

11.43 a.m.

Mr. Oliver: I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment. I suggest that there is no analogy between the cinema dispute and the words that the hon. Member seeks to delete from the Clause. This Bill seeks to promote uniformity of wages. Parliament is determined that the wages paid in this industry shall be made uniform; and what does it matter whether it be the man himself or the trade union to which he belongs or some other organisation that brings forward the complaint that the wage he is receiving is wrong having regard to the determination of Parliament? The question will have to be investigated by the appropriate tribunal, and if they find that the complaint is well founded it will be upheld; if not, no further action will result.

11.44 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I always admire my hon. Friend's dialectical skill and the way he puts his arguments, but I hope the Committee will not be misled by his topical reference to the cinema dispute. It has no relevance. This is not a question of one union against another; it is a question of how a complaint is to be made and by whom. We are providing that the rate of wages paid shall not be unfair. My hon. Friend says that he has no complaint with regard to the first two methods of raising the matter, but that he has a complaint with regard to the third. It is not a question of recognition at all, but

whether, in the opinion of the Minister, any trade union, not a union of which the worker is a member but which has a substantial number of workers employed in road haulage work, shall be able to make a complaint. I think that the Committee will agree that that is reasonable. I will not be led into a long discussion about contending unions. Trades unions can be left, as are employers' organisations, to look after themselves in that matter. I can tell my hon. Friend and the Committee that the trades unions are willing to stand that risk and are strongly in favour of this provision and there is nothing to be said further. We are dealing with an industry the organisation of which has been notoriously weak and in regard to which it has been hard to get complaints made. A worker may not like to make a complaint himself, although he is aware that he is not being paid the wages that the law would desire. In that case, surely, he ought to have the backing of an organised body representing a substantial proportion of people in this industry and whose members themselves are also vitally interested in maintaining the standard as a whole.
The Committee must keep the past and the present history of the matter in mind. There are some who desire us to go a good deal further than we have, and there are others who wish we had not gone as far. On another issue the position is reversed, and some people think that we are doing too much while others think that we are doing too little. If we are to make this thing effective, we must provide the appropriate machinery for complaints, and we think that the worker or his own union or a union representing a substantial body of workers in the industry, should be able to act. I am fortified by the fact that there is another Amendment on the Paper which takes exactly the opposite point of view from that of my hon. Friend, and desires that not only the union should have the right, but the employers' organisation also. It is an exactly opposite point of view. For these reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The net effect of the Amendment would be to perpetuate a system where a large body of people not being organised and having any means of reflecting the fact that they


are underpaid, would continue to be underpaid. The object of the Bill in embracing the A, B, and C licence holders is to see that if an unfair wage is paid some machinery is set up and some representation is afforded to the man who has been afraid to complain because of victimisation, to refer to the proper body coming within the terms of the Act.

11.49 a.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Would my right hon. Friend accept, if an Amendment were proposed and the Chair would accept it, the insertion of the words: "with the consent of the worker"? If he makes a complaint to an organisation of which he is not a member, I can visualise a case in which the organisation might raise the issue, without any knowledge on the part of the individual concerned, for the purpose of prejudicing the individual on the ground that he had declined to join the union that made the application. It is all very well hon. Members saying that trades unions do not sometimes bully men. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not like having it stated, but it does not do them harm sometimes to be criticised. They spend a large part of their lives criticising a system of which they do not approve, and there is no reason why they should not be subjected to a little criticism themselves.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The object of this Bill is to deal with employers who have never hitherto paid proper wages.

Mr. Williams: That may be, but the hon. Member must not prejudice the whole issue by dragging in one aspect of the matter without taking some cognisance of the other. We know that from time to time men are driven out of their employment by trade union action.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Just as the doctors are.

Mr. Williams: The threat is sometimes made, in fact, frequently in South Wales, that, unless a certain man joins a union or is dismissed from his employment, the other members will stop work. It is no good saying that this terrorism does not exist at the present time. That is why I have moved the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

11.51 a.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, after "work," to insert "or an organisation of employers."
This is slightly different from the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). The object of the Amendment is to have power to refer questions of unfair wages to the Minister in the same manner that the road haulier worker can get the trade union to do it for him. They have that power and a large number of employers—the Motor Users Association, the Conciliation Boards, the Associated Committee of C Licence holders, which has 20 organisations in it, and the Association of Road Users—would like to have this Amendment inserted. If they wanted to put a case to the Minister, as the Bill stands, they would have to have it done through the trade unions. The trade unions would, no doubt, be able to raise this question, but, I think, the Committee will agree that the employers should have the right themselves. Take, for example, the hypothetical case of a large baker who employs a road haulier to do his work for him. He decides to buy his own lorries and run them with his own men—half bakers and half hauliers. He might have to cut down his expenses by a reduction of wages, and the haulier who is going to lose his contract on this account should have the right of approaching the Minister and pitting the case to him, just as have the trade union, who would probably take it up themselves. We feel that the employer himself should have the right in the Bill, as have the trade unions, to put the case before the Minister.

11.53 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown: There are two points here, one of which is rather more reasonable than the other. My hon. and gallant Friend has said that there are some organisations who desire this, but it is equally true to say that there are more organisations which do not desire it. In the long, interesting and helpful discussions which we have had on this matter we have taken into consideration hundreds of points, one of which is that a private carrier should have the right to complain. That would mean an internecine war between one employer and another, and I am sure that the bulk of employers would not desire that that should be possible.


The other point is that an employers' organisation should have the right to complain as against another employers' organisation. The case for that is much stronger than the other, but even there the objection is great. It would undoubtedly lead to what is undesirable. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) referred on the previous Amendment to war between union and union. This would be war between employers' organisation and employers' organisation. An organisation of any kind is not likely to act without reason, and I understand that the general body of employers are against having this right. The Industrial Courts Act does not recognise a dispute between employers, either individually or collectively, as being a trade dispute to which the provisions of the Act are applicable. A trade dispute is defined in that Act as a dispute between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen. In the light of what I have said, my hon. and gallant Friend will see that the first part of the Amendment is undesirable, although there is something to be said for the second part.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: There is only one part of my Amendment.

Mr. Brown: The Amendment falls into two parts. One part affects a private carrier and the other an organisation. The hon. and gallant Member must see that to give an unlimited right to any private carrier would be very undesirable.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: The right hon. Gentleman is evidently referring to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). In this case, east and west do not agree.

Mr. E. Brown: The first Amendment has been called, but we must have regard to the structure of the Clause and must take the two Amendments together. The second Amendment would be necessary to make the first effective. That issue is clear. There are two points involved, the private carrier and the organisation, and the argument that I have put is relevant to both Amendments, one of which the Chair may or may not call.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The custom is that if an employer is under the impression that what the hon. and gallant Member has referred to is in contempla-

tion, the first thing he does is to call the attention of the trade union to the matter, and the trade union will take it up.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I think that the course suggested in my Amendment is the more desirable, and I hope the Committee will accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 6, line 5, leave out the second "a," and insert "any."

In line 17, leave out "a," and insert "any."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

11.57 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, at the end, to insert:
 (d) it is equivalent to the remuneration payable for that work to similar workers by employers in the district engaged in the same trade or industry as the employer, in pursuance of any decision of a joint industrial council, conciliation board, or other similar body, regulating the remuneration for similar work of workers employed in that trade or industry; or.
This Amendment is designed to remove any possibility of doubt, which has been expressed, as to the status of the rates of wages determined by Joint Industrial Council. There are agreements which are agreements and there are other points which are regarded as decisions. We are not quite clear whether the Clause as it stands will remove doubts and therefore this Amendment is inserted to make it clear that a decision is operative equally with an agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, at the end, to insert:
 (5) Where, upon an application made to him, a matter is to be referred by the Minister for the settlement in accordance with the provisions of the last foregoing sub-section, the matter shall be so referred within one month from the date on which the application was received by the Minister unless in his opinion the special circumstances of the case make it necessary or desirable to postpone the reference of the matter.
Fear has been expressed that there may be undue delays with regard to the processes under the Bill, especially with regard to complaints to the Industrial Court. Under Clause 4 (4) the first thing that will happen after a complaint is made is that the Minister will decide whether it is frivolous or vexatious and will make representations accordingly. In order to avoid delay in getting a


decision we are proposing this Amendment, in which it will be noted that we stipulate:
 the matter shall be so referred within one month from the date on which the application was received.
That shows that we do not desire any frivolous or undue delay in getting a decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, '` That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

12. p.m.

Mr. Ross Taylor: Some doubt has arisen as to the precise meaning of "remuneration" in this Clause. Can we be assured by the Minister that it covers not only ordinary wage rates but overtime? If it does not do so, then it is obvious that a serious conflict of jurisdiction may arise. I think the doubt has arisen from the drafting of subsection (4). If the doubt is unwarranted, I think it ought to be dispelled.

Mr. Brown: I can give my hon. Friend a complete assurance that that doubt is unfounded.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Power of Industrial Court to fix statutory remuneration.)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, after "the," to insert "road haulage."
This Amendment is to make it clear that the Industrial Court will deal only with remuneration in respect of road haulage work.

Amendment agreed to.

12.2 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, after "employer," to insert:
or any organisation of employers of which the employer is a member.
If hon. Members will look at the proviso in line 35, page 8, they will see that the question of the remuneration of any individual may be raised by an employer, a worker, or a trade union of which the worker is a member. If an employer belongs to an employers' organisation he can entrust them with the task of raising the issue. At the moment,

apparently, an employers' organisation would be debarred from acting on behalf of the employer; he must himself make the application. It is surely sensible in these days when associations of employers are negotiating with trade unions, that such an organisation should be authorised to act on behalf of the individual employer in respect of an application of this kind.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I should like to support the Amendment. Employers' organisations ought to have the same right as anybody in bringing these matters forward, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment.

12.4 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of what my hon. Friends have said, my right hon. Friend will look into this matter between now and the further stages of the Bill, but I would remind them that he already has power under Section 3 (1) of the Industrial Courts Act to make rules with regard to the procedure to be followed in cases that are referred to the Industrial Court for settlement. Under these rules the employer can be represented before the Industrial Council, by counsel or by a solicitor, and in fact organisations of employers appear as well as counsel.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I hope that the Minister will not give serious consideration to the acceptance of this Amendment. It would give the employers' organisation power to ask for a variation of an award by the Industrial Court. The trade unions would have no such right.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I am not asking for anything so unreasonable. I am merely asking that an employers' organisation shall be in the same position as a trade union. That is simply elementary justice. However, in view of the reply I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the matter will be given further consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Duty to pay statutory remuneration).

12.7 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 9, line 29, after "fund," to insert:


 or any appropriate voluntary deductions made by an employer in response to a request in writing signed by the worker concerned.
This is to make the position clear that these sums can be deducted in the same way as superannuation funds and provident funds. It is merely to clarify the position.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid that the matter is not quite so simple as the hon. and gallant Member appears to think. In the first place, the Amendment is unnecessary, and in so far as it would affect the point he has in mind, it raises serious objections. In cases where an employer at the request of a workman takes a sum out of the workman's wages for a superannuation fund or some other object indicated by the worker, so that money passes out of the control of the employer, that sum is not regarded as a deduction from wages, and, consequently, is taken into account as the remuneration of the worker. To that extent the Amendment is unnecessary. In so far as it is a voluntary deduction for the purpose of paying money to the employer and remains in his control, it raises rather serious objections.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: After the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, ' That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.10 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I want to raise a point on Subsection (3). I wish I had appreciated the significance of this Subsection earlier and had put down a motion to leave it out. This Sub-section deals with the case of a man who, part of his time, comes under the provisions of this Bill and for another part is doing other work. He may be a shop assistant, an employé of a gas company or a local authority engaged in electrical work. While he is driving a vehicle his rate of remuneration may be so much per hour, and when he is doing another job his rate of remuneration may be different. If a man employed for 45 or 48 hours a week is for 20 hours doing work at a remuneration of 1s. 2d. an hour and for the other part at a remuneration of 1s. 6d. per hour, you at once get an argument

that he should never be engaged at any time on Work for which he is paid 1s. 2d. an hour. There is going to be ceaseless trouble if this Subsection is passed. A man will say "I did 10 hours on 1s. 2d. last week, why not let Will do it this week?" I think it is an absurd position to have men who may be part of their time in a normal working week engaged at one rate of pay and for part of the time at another rate. From the sensible point of view a man should have a consolidated rate of pay so that he is not affected adversely. You are going to have a great deal of trouble inside any industrial occupation and many disputes between individual workers on the ground that they have to do an undue proportion of the work at a lower rate of pay. The more I look at this Subsection the less I like it, and I hope some consideration will be given to this matter.

12.12 p.m.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I rise to support the remarks of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) I have had various representations made to me, and I have no doubt other hon. Members have had similar representations, from those who have to engage men to run vans and vehicles for an hour or two in the morning. They are very upset at this provision in the Bill, and are somewhat worried as to the position it will create. I hope we shall have a clear statement from the Minister as to how these people will be affected.

12.13 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: I have also had representations from an association of butchers in my constituency, who point out that there are a number of people employed for two or three hours in the mornings driving vans, and for the rest of the day employed is some capacity in the shop. They are anxious as to how this provision will work. I hope that further reconsideration will be given to this point.

12.14 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I hope there will be no opposition to the Clause standing part. During the passage of the 1933 Bill when we sought to get C licence holders included, the butchers made out their case and C licence holders were excluded. No hon. Member opposite has said that he is willing to amend the Bill so that the


higher rate of pay shall always be paid. They desire that as the majority of the work is being paid at the lowest rate, the lowest rate shall become the rate of pay for these people. We desire to get a proper equipoise between what is road haulage work and other work, and to get a remuneration fixed which will be equitable.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I can assure hon. Members that without exception this is the most difficult and complicated issue in the range of road haulage. It was because of the fears expressed that any attempt to bring in the small man who is employing a shop assistant part of the day driving a van, and in another part of the day in the shop, would be so complicated and was considered so insoluble a problem in 1933 that it was decided not to do so. All the fears expresed by those who opposed have in the last five years been shown to be well founded. We set ourselves to find a solution, and when the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) asks me to give consideration to the matter I reply that not only have we given consideration to it but we have given months of consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and myself have seen round about 70 to 80 separate deputations and organisations on the subject and the solution of our problems is this particular one.
We have provided a solution which is the fairest possible to the employer. This Sub-section provides that a man is under the Act when he is a motor driver, and when he is carrying on his ordinary occupation he is subject to the ordinary agreements or arrangements of that occupation. Road haulage comes under road haulage regulations. I have been asked to give a practical, illustration. In some cases there will probably be no indication in the contract of any allocation of pay as between road haulage and non-road haulage, the only fact stated being that a worker was employed on mixed work and was paid an upstanding wage for that work. It is just that sort of case that the Sub-section will meet. The amount attributable to the road haulage work is to be deemed to be an amount bearing the same proportion to

the total remuneration as the time spent on road haulage work. In a simple sentence, that is a pro rata arrangement. If one-third of a man's time is spent on road haulage work and two-thirds on non-road haulage, and if he has an upstanding wage of £3, the remuneration for road haulage is £1. On reflection I think that the bulk of those who in all kinds of trades, not only butchers, in the smaller country towns and villages have had this problem, will be satisfied that we have really done our best to provide a practical solution for what up to now has been an insoluble problem.

12.18 p.m.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I am not going to oppose this Clause because I realise that the Minister and his advisers have gone about their work very completely. I appreciate that in the illustration the Minister gave, of one-third and two-thirds, the matter is very simple, but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the position of the very small man who perhaps runs a van for an hour in the morning six days a week and the rest of the time his employé is engaged in the shop or on other work. Really it will become a very complicated calculation in a very small matter indeed. The Minister tells us what consideration he has given to the subject, but it would be well worth considering whether there is not some limit beyond which the Bill shall not apply.

Mr. E. Brown: There are hundreds of thousands of people who conduct operations of all kinds in all kinds of industries and in all kinds of circumstances. What we have done has been to try to provide a solution which will be a safeguard to all concerned, and I think we have done it.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: As to the power to make regulations with regard to timekeeping, take the case of a man, a plumber with his mate, sent to do some plumbing. They have to travel by a vehicle. While they are travelling on the road their time might come under this Sub-section. They go to a house to fix a new washer on a tap, and then the plumber comes under the other provision. Knowledge of the time-keeping lies entirely with the workman; the employer has knowledge and can have no knowledge of it. I am certain that in administration, in spite of the 70 deputations the Minister has received, there is going to


be trouble in this matter. I forecast that if the Clause goes through in this form, in due course an amending Bill will have to be brought forward. Those who have had a variety of industrial experiences are familiar with the kind of business. The problem will arise during periods when the workman is away from the employer's premises travelling. He has to keep a record of the time spent travelling and of the time he worked on this job and that job. He may go from one house to another on a ten minutes' journey, and finish that second job in an hour. He then goes to a third house. The problem of administration is going to be very difficult, and when under Clause 7 you proceed to a prosecution the whole of the information on the subject will not be in the possession of the prosecuted person. I hope my right hon. Friend will give the matter some further consideration.

Mr. E. Brown: Of course records have to be kept under the rules. We are not in ignorance about the practical difficulties. We have given months of consideration and discussion to this very point, and the Minister is very used to difficult and practical points arising under all kinds of legislation, and indeed under the Trade Boards Act. My hon. Friend is therefore a little late in making his prophecy, because in the Second Reading Debate I said that this was the latest but not necessarily the last Bill on this subject.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: My right hon. Friend says that records have to be kept. Does that mean that a butcher has to keep a record of the time a boy is on his van?

Mr. Brown: I am advised that that is so.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Remedies for default.)

12.23 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to move, in page l0, line 21, to leave out Subsection (2).
I do not know whether we are to have the assistance of any lawyers on this matter, but there you may have two prosecutions in reference to one offence. The proposal is modified in part by Subsection (3), but the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) has1938

on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (3). You may have very considerable difficulties with regard to prosecutions. Both the employer and the agent may be prosecuted, and not necessarily at the same time, in respect of the same offence. We ought to have a little further information before we allow the Sub-section to become part of the Bill.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is an opportunity for me to ask my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) not to press their Amendments but to leave the Clause as it is: I am conscious that at the moment I am dealing only with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon, but I think I would be in order in referring at the same time to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe.

The Deputy-Chairman: In the circumstances, if the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) agrees, it might be agreeable to the Committee to discuss the two points as one.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I agree with that course, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Perhaps I may be permitted to explain the reason we put this Amendment on the Paper. During the Second Reading Debate I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour to give serious consideration to the question of the agent being utilised by an employer, who was, in fact, the delinquent, to take the responsibility for the act, and thus render the employer immune from being got at by the Traffic Commissioners with regard to the revocation of his licence on account of an offence. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that this was a trade board custom. I would point out to the Committee that that trade board custom, as such, is very difficult to apply to an industry such as that with which we are now dealing. I know that the trade board custom is that, if a bona fide employer instructs his agent in Leicester, or somewhere in the Midlands, to meet the implications and conditions of trade board agreements, then if the agent fails in that duty, it should be the agent who is dealt with and not the employer.
In this case, however, the agent can cover himself by the employer's request that the man shall overload his vehicle, that he shall work more hours than are permitted by Statute, and that he shall be paid an upstanding wage which does not take into consideration the question of overtime after a given number of hours. For such things the agent could be held to be responsible, and his employer would be able to say that his instructions were that the rates were to be paid, whereas, in fact, by a subterfuge the employer had arranged with the agent so to manipulate the conditions and wage sheets that they would be derogatory to the interest of the road haulage worker. I do not intend to press the Amendment to a Division, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to give further consideration to this matter.

12.28 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. I see that there is on the Order Paper an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Labour—in line 33, leave out "section," and insert "Act"—which, if it were pressed and carried would alter Sub-section (3) from a sub-section which deals with the question of the offence of not paying adequate remuneration into a sub-section which deals with every offence under the Act. Consequently, if this matter is discussed now in the discussion taking place on the two Amendments before us, we shall be discussing Sub-section (3) without any knowledge as to whether it applies this machinery to one small but important offence, or to the whole range of offences.

The Deputy-Chairman: In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is obvious that these two Amendments can much more easily be discussed together. I think they may be discussed on the assumption that the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will be carried.

12.29 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think your assumption, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, is a fairly safe one, and I should like to deal briefly with the points that have been raised. There are three possible solutions to the problem raised by these two Amendments. Both Sub-section (2) and

Sub-section (3) might be omitted, or Subsection (2) might be omitted and Subsection (3) left in, of Sub-section (3) might be omitted and Sub-section (2) left in. If both Sub-sections were omitted, the only remedy for a contravention of the Act would be to proceed against the employer, because the statutory remedy comes into force only as between the worker and the employer. The situation might arise in which the legal employer was entirely blameless and the agent entirely to blame. In the opinion of the Government, that would not be a satisfactory situation. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) were carried and Sub-section (3) were deleted and Subsection (2) left in, it would be possible to proceed against both the employer and the agent, thereby securing a double conviction, which would also, in the opinion of the Government, be an unfair procedure. If, on the other hand, the last possible solution were adopted and the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) were carried and Sub-section (2) were left out and Sub-section (3) left in, Sub-section (3) would mean nothing, since the agent could never be convicted. In view of this difficulty, I hope both hon. Members will see their way to leave the Clause as it is.
This matter was fully discussed on the Second Reading, and in view of the observations then made by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe and other hon. Members, my right hon. Friend considered the subject very fully; but I would reiterate one or two of the arguments used in that Debate, because I think they could profitably be emphasised again. The employer must show that the contravention of the Act was without his consent and connivance, and that he used due diligence; and even then he would escape conviction, if a prosecution took place, only if his agent were in fact, convicted. In this industry, as hon. Members realise, there are numerous branches, and it would be a little hard to expect the employer to undergo all the penalties attaching to a contravention if, having used due diligence and without any consent or connivance, one of his branch managers contravened the Act. As the hon Member for Rotherhithe said, there are numerous precedents—even more numerous perhaps than he realises—under the


Agricultural Wages Act, the Trade Boards Act, the Shops Act, the Sale of Food Act and the Factories Act, and diligent research would no doubt reveal other precedents as well. The case raised by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe on the Second Reading was concerned with a successful attempt to force the worker himself to break the law, and that of course, is a different matter from the situation which is now being discussed. I hope that, in view of those arguments, the hon. Members will leave the Bill as it is.

Mr. H. G. Williams: If the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) will agree not to press his Amendment, I will withdraw mine.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: For the first time in my life, I am willing to come to an arrangement with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.33 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 10, line 33, to leave out "section," and to insert "Act."
In moving this Amendment, I will deal with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) by pointing out that the Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment. Clauses 6 and 7 were originally one, and the Amendment is to make this provision apply to Clause 7.

12.34 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: It may be only a matter of drafting, but it is important, because people will have to spend a great deal of money in administering the Act. [Interruption.] I do not get any of it. Clause 7 provides remedies for default. The Minister was good enough to explain that Clauses 6 and 7 were originally one, and that he wants this provision to apply to both. If that is what he really wants, would he mind saying so, and on the Report Stage re-drafting the wording so that it refers to "this Section and the foregoing Section" or something to that effect? The simple difficulty is that if the reference is to "this Act," it will apply to every offence under the Act. There could not be a case of worse drafting, and one which would be more likely to call forth savage comments from Chancery Judges in Courts of Appeal,

than placing in one sub-section or two sub-sections a provision which ought to be in a general Clause covering all the provisions regarding offences.

Mr. Brown: I will look into this matter, and my legal advisers will see whether or not more apt words could be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Persons working under arrangements to be deemed to be employed.)

12.35 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 11, line 34, after "road," to insert:
to whom Part I of this Act applies.
It is not clear to whom this Clause is intended to apply. It is supposed to apply to A and B licence holders only, and not to ancillary users. The words "engaged by way of trade" might be thought, however, to include ancillary users, and therefore I suggest that the words which I propose are necessary in order to make it clear that the Clause applies only to A and B holders.

12.36 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: The wider definition is considered necessary in order to include in the Bill arrangements which would otherwise be outside its scope. For instance, there is the case of various classes of out-workers. Employment usually, but not always, connotes a contract of service, and the suggested definition would be too narrow for the purposes of the Bill just as it is for the purposes of the Trade Boards Act. There might be arrangements for employment which did not amount to contracts of service, but which ought to be covered. If a worker drives a vehicle or performs any of the work in connection with it which is within the scope of the Bill, the definition in the Schedule would cover that and I think the Committee and the hon. and Gallant Member will agree that it should be covered in the Bill. It is for that purpose that we have the wider definition in Clause 9.

Mr. H. G. Williams: What is meant by "transport of goods by road"? Does


it mean the transport of goods on a public highway? Suppose a vehicle is travelling inside the grounds of a large works to which there is no public right of access, conveying goods from one part of the factory to another, is it covered by these words?

Mr. Brown: The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question is "No."

Mr. Benjamin Smith: If this Amendment were accepted, would it not mean saying to the owner of a vehicle who was employed by a firm that he must pay himself the statutory wages. We do not see why the owner-driver as such should be brought within these terms.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Duty of employers to keep records.)

12.38 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 12, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert:
 (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to keep such records as are necessary to show the wages paid as respects all workers engaged on road haulage work.
The object of the Amendment is to make it compulsory on every employer, whether he is the holder of an A, B or C licence, to keep records showing the wages paid to his road haulage workers. The Bill only makes this necessary in respect of A and B licence holders and certain C licence holders, namely, those whose road haulage workers' wages are fixed by the Industrial Court. My object is to bring all C licence holders within the ambit of the Bill, and I gather that the ancillary users are, on the whole, agreeable to that proposal.

12.39 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: We come back here to a matter which has already been discussed on Clause 3. A record of wages must in the case of "split" work involve a record of times and the record of times is to he made not by the employer but by the employé. If this Amendment or the later Amendment in the name of the

Minister should be carried, what will be the obligation on a shopkeeper in respect of an employé who spends part of the morning in weighing out sugar, and the rest of the morning in delivering the sugar?

12.40 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid I cannot satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend by accepting his Amendment. Later on I shall be able to deal with other points on the subject of keeping records, but my right hon. Friend has made every endeavour to see that justice is done without imposing on really good employers useless obligations. If Clause 10 stands there is no obligation on any employer unless and until statutory remuneration is in force in respect of his road haulage workers, or the Industrial Court has given a decision in respect of employers under Part II. The Amendment would put a further obligation on employers to keep records, whether the statutory remuneration has been fixed or not, and my right hon. Friend feels that that would be needless.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.42 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 12, line 11 after "employer," to insert:
 and the period for which they are to be retained by him.
The Bill includes no reference to the period for which records of wages are to be preserved. It seems to my right hon. Friend desirable that some reference to the period should be made. Indeed, employers generally are anxious to know their exact liability and the length of time for which they must preserve records of wages and hours. It is not possible to specify a definite period because of one or two practical considerations. For example, until the Central Board has reached a decision on the question of holiday remuneration it would not be possible to do so. Within those limits, however, we propose to make this reference to the period, which I hope the Committee will accept.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: In the trade board legislation the period for which a person can be sued for back wages is stated. It will be obvious to the Minister that any period fixed for the maintenance of


records should be equal to or in excess of that period, otherwise evidence which is required may not be available.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 12, line 21, to leave out from "section," to the end of line 23, and to add:
 or the periods for which such records are to be retained, the Minister shall consult, in the case of regulations as to records of work to which Part I of this Act applies, the Central Board, and in the case of regulations as to records of work to which Part II of this Act applies, such organisations of employers and workers as he thinks proper.
The first part of this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment just carried. This Amendment also provides machinery for dealing with those who come under Part II of the Bill, so that the Minister can consult such organisations of employers and workers as he thinks proper.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: It might be convenient on this Amendment to raise a small point contained in the next Amendment on the Paper standing in my name, to add the words:
 and such representative organisations of employers as shall from time to time notify the Minister that their members will be affected by such regulations.
As this Amendment stands, the discretion as to who is to be consulted is left with the Minister. My Amendment suggests that organisations should have the right to notify the Minister, and then automatically, subject to fulfilling the conditions, they would be put on the list for consultation. It is only a small matter, but I think that administratively it might be a convenience.

Mr. E. Brown: I can assure my hon. Friend that the point is really met by the Amendment which we have just passed.

Mr. Williams: Then I will not move my Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Appointment and towers of officers.)

12.46 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 13, line 1, to leave out from "thereof," to "and," in line 3.
The object of the Amendment is to provide that a signed, written statement shall not be required. I submit that it is not necessary. In spite of modern education, there are still people who cannot read and write, and to make them write out and sign a statement is not necessary. There is no precedent for such a procedure in any other Act dealing with the road motor transport industry, and I cannot see that there is any necessity for it, so that I hope my right hon. Friend will not insist upon it.

12.47 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. and gallant Friend said that there is no precedent in a Road Traffic Act for words of this kind, and he also said that a certain number of the population still cannot read or write. I hope he does not thereby suggest that there is a higher proportion of people in this industry unable to read and write, because unless he does, there is no particular reason for picking out road legislation as being the legislation in which words like these have not hitherto been inserted. In the Trade Boards Act, the Factories Act, and the Unemployment Insurance Act it is regarded as a necessary power to secure the proper observance of the Act, and it does not appear to my hon. Friend that there is any valid reason why a similar power should not be contained in this Measure.

12.48 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen) does not mean to imply that drivers of road vehicles are an illiterate body of people. I think I can say on their behalf that they are a very intelligent body of people and quite able to write out any reports that may be required.

Mr. H. G. Williams: In the main the implication is that it is the employers who cannot write.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Financial provisions.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.50 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I suggest that there is no valid reason why additional taxation should be put upon a special section of the community, as is suggested by this Clause, under which special taxation is being imposed of a rather penalising character on a certain section only; and I want to raise a word of protest, not only on that point, but on the general point of the expense that is being put on the taxpayers of this country. There is no sign of cutting down expenses, but it is a case of additional, additional, and additional expenses the whole time.

Mr. E. Brown: I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that there is only a small sum of about £25,000 per annum which is estimated as the administrative cost to the Exchequer arising from this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and Proceedings of Road Haulage Wages Boards.)

12.52 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 17, line 8, to leave out "twelve," and to insert:
not less than twelve nor more than eighteen.
There is a number of Amendments on the Order Paper designed to secure that the Central Board shall be as representative as possible of all the major organisations concerned. This Amendment has a double purpose. Under the new Central Board consideration will have to be given to the names of not merely English, but Scottish organisations, and on the workers' side the Scottish Horse and Motormen's Union will have to be considered, and possibly other claims too. It will give a bigger manœuvring ground from which to make the board more representative. We shall thus be able to secure that any lack of balance in the constitution of the Central Board after

the area boards' representatives have been selected, can be redressed. These are the sole purposes of the Amendment, and I am sure that all sections of the Committee will welcome it.

Amendment agreed to.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to move, in page 17, line 8, at the end, to insert:
 who shall not be members of the area boards.
This Amendment raises, in a simple way, a principle. The Central Board in one sense is a court of appeal. Is it desirable that persons who are members of the court of first instance may also be members of the court of appeal? Should they not be a separate body of persons? I think there is much to be said for saying that the people who serve on the Central Board should not be members of an area board. It can be argued both ways, but I think that, on balance, the advantage is in favour of my Amendment. Every hon. Member can appreciate the significance of the argument.

12.54 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I agree that there is a balance of arguments here, but is it wise, in advance, to tie the hands of the Minister or not? The hon. Member thinks it is, but I think, on the contrary, that on the whole it is not. I can assure him that I should consult the organisations about the appointments, and I think my refusal to accept the Amendment is in the interests of the employers and the workers as well as in the interests of good administration. My hon. Friend may rest assured that we shall see that all who are affected will be consulted.

12.55 p.m.

Mr. Moreing: I see the reasonableness of the Minister's claim in this instance, but there is an increasing tendency in Bills to provide for more and more things to be done by the Minister and to leave him wide discretion. The objection in this case is not so great as in other cases, and we have every confidence in the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, but we should protest against the increasing tendency to pass legislation leaving so much discretion to the Minister to make regulations. It is a tendency which is growing and which should be watched. Otherwise we shall have Bills on the lines


of the Defence of the Realm Act merely saying that the Minister can make any regulations that he thinks fit.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The representatives of the interests concerned will be the watchdogs of the Minister, and if he fails to do anything that the board felt reasonably right the Minister will still be subject to the criticism of this House.

12.57 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: In this case the Minister's powers are very autocratic and there is no check on him whatever on the part of the organisations. I am satisfied with his assurance, although it binds only him and not his successors, who will probably be worse than he is; and I see that there is substance in the point that there may be a balance of advantage in actual practice in not doing what I suggest. My right hon. Friend wishes to keep his hands free until he has examined the actual problem arising in the appointment of individuals. There may be cases in which he may find that people who are on an area board ought obviously to be on the Central Board. For that reason I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I sympathise with the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing) that there is a limit to the discretion that we ought to confer on the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 17, line 9, at the beginning, insert "representative." —[Mr. E. Brown.]

12.59 p.m.

Mr. White: I beg to move, in page 17, line 10, after "boards," to insert, "after nomination by such boards."
This is a case in which it will be a pity if the area boards, which will be in a better position to be acquainted with the personnel, are not able to decide in the first place the people who are willing and capable to render service in respect of them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is true that the Area boards will have special and local knowledge. They will be appointed by the Minister and he will consult them and pay due regard to all they say, and, as far as possible, adopt what they say; but his ultimate responsibility must be maintained to see that the Central Board is a truly representative body. That is a re-

sponsibility which he can scarcely delegate to another body.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.1 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I beg to move, in page 17, line 11, to leave out "not less than three nor more than five," and to insert "three."
This Amendment speaks for itself. It is to provide that three people are sufficient as additional members to be appointed to the Board.

Mr. E. Brown: On the whole, I attach a good deal of importance to having the possibility of these independent members. The Central Board will have a lot of contact to make with the area boards and three is a small number. It is my intention at the start to appoint three, and if practical experience shows that there is a necessity for five, it can be considered again.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I take it that before appointing any additional members the Minister will consult the people concerned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 17, line 15, to leave out "twelve representative members, six," and to insert:
representative members other than those appointed from among members of the area boards, one half.
This and the following series of Amendments are designed to secure that at any meeting of the Central Board every area shall be represented by members appointed from among the members of the area boards. In England and Wales there will be two members, one employer and one worker, appointed from among the members of each area board. It is desired that no area shall be deprived of its voice by the unavoidable absence of its member. The Amendments are put forward with the concurrence of the organisations who are parties to the existing Conciliation Board. I intend to follow the practice which is common to trade boards and other wage-negotiating machinery by making regulations providing for the equalisation of voting power between the two sides of the Central Board in the event of the number of members being present at any meeting being unequal.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 17, line 17, leave out "six," and insert "one half."

In line 18, after "and," insert "before determining the number of such representative members and."

In line 19, leave out "representative," and insert "any such."

In line 22, after the first "the," insert "representative."

In line 27, after "workers," insert:
For every member appointed under this paragraph the Minister shall appoint a substitute member who may be deputed by the member to act for him in the event of his unavoidable absence; and a substitute member while so deputed shall be deemed for all purposes to be a member of the board.

In line 28, after "member," insert "or substitute member."

In line 30, after "members," insert "and substitute members."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

1.4 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport: (Captain Austin Hudson): I beg to move, in page 17, line 36, to leave out "mechanical".
The object of this and the following Amendment is to remove a fear that people connected with some other form of goods transport in competition with road hauliers might be appointed to serve as independent members on the Board. My right hon. Friend the Minister would not have regarded a competitor as an independent person, but in order to make the position clear the Amendment is moved.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I should like to thank the Minister for this Amendment, which will have the effect of eliminating possible criticism as to the associations of the independent members and ensure, what we all want, a body which is uninterested and, therefore, unbiased.

1.6 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I should like to know who will be left in if this Amendment is accepted. [Laughter.] I am quite serious about that. The paragraph says:
 The independent members shall be persons who in the opinion of the Minister are not connected with the mechanicle transport of goods by road.

Those words will cut out every shopkeeper and, presumably, every manufacturer in the country, in fact everybody engaged in any form of trade or industry. There will be left only doctors, solicitors, architects and a few people like that. I am honestly of opinion that though the object of this Amendment may be desirable we have gone a little too far and reduced the area of selection to very narrow proportions. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the point I have put.

1.7 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I will certainly look into the matter again, but every single combination of employers or workers will be represented, so I do not think the area of representation can be so very narrow, and I shall probably find it embarrassingly large.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 37, leave out "by road."—[Captain Hudson.]

1.8 p.m.

Mr. White: I beg to move, in page 18, line 2, after the first "of," to insert:
 three independent members, who shall be persons not connected with the transport of goods, and.
There is such general harmony over the proceedings upon this Bill that it is almost impossible to imagine that when it comes into operation the same harmony will not characterise the working of its provisions, but hon. Members who have had experience of bodies such as this may be able to envisage circumstances in which the presence of three independent members may be of very great value. Deadlocks are not unknown in the course of their proceedings, and I think there is a great deal to be said from the point of view of the practical working of this body that there should be independent members upon it. We have a precedent in the Agricultural Wages Board, which I think has worked well.

1.9 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to this Amendment, which is similar in principle to one which I have upon the Paper but which has not been selected. I would remind the Committee that the Central Board is to have an independent element, and I find it difficult to understand why there should not be an


independent element upon the area boards. We are going to set up area boards consisting of equal numbers from each side, and being sensible people they will, no doubt, get on in a friendly way over most of the issues which will come before them, but from time to time there will be need of an independent element. In the case of the Central Board my right hon. Friend has provided that the chairman must be selected from the independent members, and I do not understand on what grounds he has decided that on the area boards there shall be no independent members.

1.10 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment. Under the Bill area boards have no power to initiate discussion. That is left to the Central Board, after proper consultation with the appropriate body. The independent members on the Central Board can, however, visit the area boards by request, or upon the injunction of the Minister.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Not to vote.

Mr. Smith: Not to vote, but to speak. That maintains the integrity of the Central Board. They may give advice to an area board but cannot vote, but on the Central Board they will have the right to vote. With 11 area boards and three independent members upon each, 33 independent members would have to be appointed.

1.11 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The two Concilation Boards have expressed their point of view upon the suggestion behind this Amendment, and neither of them wishes it, and the Scottish Concilation Board in particular holds very strong views on the point. It seems to my right hon. Friend that if there should be a clash of views on an area board it would be as well that that should be brought to the notice of the Central Board rather than that an illusion of agreement should be created. Despite the eloquent arguments put forward by my hon. Friend I do not think it is desirable to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

1.13 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 18, line 10, after "and," to insert:

before determining the number of members of which any area board is to consist and.
This is a minor Amendment which is put forward after consultation with all concerned. It secures consultation with the organisations who are asking to be put into the Bill, and, of course, I desire to act in the closest possible consultation with both employers and employed.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 18, line 27, at the end, to insert:
 5. No person shall be entitled to serve on more than one area board either as a member or as a secretary of an area board.
The object of this Amendment is to provide that a member of an area board or a secretary of an area board shall not serve upon any other area board. It is a very minor matter.

Mr. E. Brown: I think that on reflection my hon. and gallant Friend will see that the Amendment would not be advantageous, because I should think that an area board would desire to act in the closest co-operation with neighbouring area boards, and when the Ministry decide to appoint official secretaries to area boards we shall probably wish to appoint the same officer to be secretary of more than one board. This is a very convenient practice which is regularly followed in the case of the Trade Board Acts. I do not understand the object of preventing employers' or workmen's representatives from serving upon more than one board, because I think all concerned will desire to have the closest co-operation with their neighbours in the other area boards.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: That being the case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made: in page 18, line 28, after "member," insert "or substitute member."

In line 29, after "or," insert "a member."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

1.16 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 18, line 29, after "term," to insert "not exceeding three years."
The object of this Amendment is to provide that while there is continuity of


policy upon the Central Board and the area boards there should be some limit to their terms of office. There is no such limit in respect of the existing National Joint Conciliation Board.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend cannot bind himself in advance to any specific period. He has already undertaken to consult the organisations concerned about the term of office of members of the Central Board and he feels that that will be adequate safeguard.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: In that case I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 33, at the end, insert "or substitute member."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

1.17 p.m.

Captain Hudson: I beg to move, in page 18, line 34, to leave out paragraph 7, and to insert:
7. Subject as hereinafter provided a quorum shall not be formed at a meeting of the Central Board or of an area board unless there are present at least one-third of the whole number of members appointed to represent employers and at least one-third of the whole number of members appointed to represent workers, and in the case of a meeting of the Central Board at least one of the independent members:
Provided that if, at the end of half-an-hour after the time appointed for any such meeting, the quorum required by the foregoing provisions of this paragraph is not formed the meeting shall, in accordance with regulations made by the Minister, stand adjourned to a future day, and at the adjourned meeting a quorum shall be formed if at least one-third of the whole number of members of the board, exclusive of the independent members, is present and, in the case of the Central Board, at least one of the independent members is also present.
The object of this Amendment is to make sure that the boards when set up are as workable as we can possibly make them. The paragraph which we propose to leave out provides that a quorum shall consist of one-third of the whole number of members of an area or of the Central Board. That provision would have permitted the meeting to consist of one side, either employers or employés and was based upon provisions relating to trade boards. It has been represented to the Minister as desirable in the present case to avoid any possibility of snap "decisions or ill-considered decisions by one

side only. I gather that that cannot happen on a trade board because an independent member is always present. The Amendment is intended to meet that point and to make sure that the whole object of Part I shall not be jeopardised by the defection of one side, (that side staying away altogether). The fact that a decision of a board made by one side only would be taken into consideration by the Minister before he made the Order, makes quite certain that an awkward position would not arise in that way, but we consider that the new words are preferable to those at present in the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill", put, and agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Procedure in relation to proposals of Central Board for fixing remuneration.)

1.19 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 19, line 6, after "order," to insert "or the varying of the conditions of work."
The object of the Amendment is to provide that area boards, in addition to being able to consider proposals in relation to the fixing of remuneration or the amendment or cancellation of road haulage orders, shall be similarly empowered in relation to the conditions of work. It is a simple and straightforward proposal.

1.20 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I have looked into this point and I find that it will complicate the drafting and is not necessary from the point of view of administration.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.21 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 19, line 7, to leave out "twenty-one" and to insert "thirty."
May I alter this wording, with permission of the Committee so as to make the Amendment read, "twenty-eight" instead of "thirty." The object of the Amendment is to provide that area boards and persons affected by the proposals of the Central Board in relation to the fixing


of remuneration and the Amendment cm cancellation of road haulage or wages orders, should give 28 days instead of 21 days in which to make representation to the Central Board. This is quite a simple proposal and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.

1.21 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: This is the first of five similar Amendments, which I have considered. and I am glad to be able to accept it and the succeeding one with the alteration of wording proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend. In regard to the other three, the period of 28 days is too long.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 19, line 7, leave out "twenty-one," and insert "twenty-eight."

In line leave out "twenty-one," and insert "twenty-eight."—[Colonel Sandman Allen.]

1.22 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 19, line 38, to leave out:
except after consultation with the area boards," and insert "unless an opportunity has been given to the area boards to make representations with respect thereto.
These words are taken from the Trade Boards Act, 1909, and deal with the position that might arise in trade boards and in the case of an area board which, in order to postpone a decision, might refuse to meet. The position is unlikely to arise, but it is thought desirable to provide for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Definitions of Road Haulage Worker and Road Haulage Work.)

1.24 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 20, line 5, to leave out from "person," to the first "driving," in line 7, and to insert:
who is employed on all or any of the following work, that is to say:—
The provision of the Road and Rail Traffic Act related merely to drivers' statutory attendants. On Second Reading I explained the position, saying that

the van boy was as much entitled to protection as the driver and attendant. This Amendment and the next four Amendments of this Schedule are intended to make that position clear from the point of view of administration.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I. thank the Minister for this Amendment. It is difficult to interpret it precisely, but so far as I can make it out it covers in substance the other Amendments which were tabled to this Schedule by myself and other hon. Members. I think my right hon. Friend has met all the reasonable points and I should like to thank him.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 8, leave out the first "in."

In line 9, leave out the first "in."

Leave out the second "in."

In line 10, leave out "or in."

In line 11, after "vehicle," insert:
and who is required to travel on or accompany the vehicle for the purpose of doing any such work." [Mr. E. Brown.]

1.26 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 20, line 13, at the end, to insert:
 Provided that a person who is employed in loading goods to be carried in or on a goods vehicle, or in unloading goods after being so carried, and who is required to travel on or accompany the vehicle partly for that purpose, shall not be deemed to be a road naulage worker by reason only of that employment, if the main purpose for which he is required to travel on or accompany the vehicle is that of executing work other than road haulage work after its arrival at his destination.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 6, after "work," to insert "before the departure of the vehicle or."
My object is to make it quite clear where the line is between being employed on the vehicle and being otherwise employed in the main. It is not quite clear in the Schedule where the line is drawn.

Mr. E. Brown: My hon. and gallant Friend has only put this Amendment on the Paper this morning. As at present advised, my view is that it is not really necessary, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to consider it before the Bill goes to another place.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I thank the Minister for what he has said, and, in


the circumstances, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I trust we may take it that this will not affect in any way, or be extended to, a driver or statutory attendant or mate.

Question put, and agreed to.

1.28 p.m.

Captain Hudson: I beg to move, in page 20, to leave out lines 29 to 32.
This is the paragraph of the Third Schedule which deals with meal times. It has been represented to us that it is better that these words should be left out, and that the Central Board should have a free hand in deciding the circumstances in which remuneration is paid. In the case of C licences the position under the Third Schedule will be that, if it is fair to pay no remuneration for meal times, no remuneration will be payable. I believe that the proposal has general approval.

Mr. Kelly: This is the first time I have noticed this paragraph, and I am wondering whether it goes further than remuneration. There are people who meet with accidents, particularly in this class of work, during their meal times, and I hope that this is not going to deprive the workman of his compensation. I hope that further consideration will be given to this matter, because the words of the paragraph mean that a worker shall not be deemed to be employed during meal times, when he may not be leaving his vehicle and an accident may happen to him. Do I understand that under this paragraph he would be considered not only to be not entitled to remuneration, but not entitled to compensation in case of accident?

1.30 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I should like to thank the Minister for having given effect to the Amendments that I put on the Paper with this object. I think, if I may say so, that the idea of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is a wrong one. The proposal is that these words should be deleted, and, therefore if, the Amendment is accepted, the man will be deemed to be employed. There

must be some sense of responsibility for the vehicle during meal times. I think the hon. Member has misread the Amendment.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I think there is good ground for anxiety here. It is true that the Workmen's Compensation Act leaves it to be decided what arises out of or in the course of the employment, and what happens during meal times in some circumstances may, and in some circumstances may not, be regarded as arising out of or in the course of the employment. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule
reads:
 For the purpose of determining the road haulage work for which statutory remuneration may be fixed under this Act, a road haulage worker shall be deemed to be employed on road haulage work "—
and so on. This, of course, is not amending the Workmen's Compensation Act in any way, but it will provide solicitors and barristers who have to argue cases for employers with a serious argument which they will have to use. They will be able to say that the question is whether the worker is doing this in the course of his employment, and here is a Statute which deals with another subject, and which ought, perhaps, not to be pressed too far, but which still says definitely that at that time, for their purposes at any rate, he was not doing it in the course of his employment. Then they will say to the judge, "If he is not doing it for one purpose, it would be odd if he were doing it for another purpose." I am certain that no one wants the Workmen's Compensation Act to be affected, and I suggest that the matter needs careful consideration.

Mr. E. Brown: It seems to me that the point is an unreal one, because what we are proposing here is that the words in question shall be taken out.

Mr. Tinker: Can we have an assurance that this will not affect workmen's compensation?

Mr. Brown: I have taken advice on the point, and am advised that it will not.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Third Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

1.34 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: On a point of Order. I understand that it is proposed to take the Report stage now. The Committee stage of the Bill has only just this minute finished, and the Minister has undertaken to consider several matters between the Committee stage and the Report stage. We have hardly had time to think what action we ought to take on Report, and I would suggest to the House that it would be better that the Report stage should be taken later.

Mr. E. Brown: I would point out that the arrangement to take all the remaining stages of the Bill in one day has not been made by the desire of the Minister, but has been accepted in all quarters of the House, and I would remind the House that, in undertaking to give further consideration to certain points, I distinctly said that that would be, not on Report, but during later stages of the Bill. I am sure it is the earnest desire that this legislation should be put into effect as quickly as possible, and to that end the agreement was arrived at through the usual channels.

1.35 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: We do not raise any objection. But I think it is a very good thing that the hon. and gallant Member raised the point he did, because otherwise the Report stage becomes nugatory, as there is no time for amendment. Also, I object very strongly to it being said to this House, which is a self-contained assembly, that things may be done in another place.

Mr. Pritt: Where they are always voting against the Government.

1.36 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I think that, in view of the fact that the Bill has undergone a considerable amount of amendment and that a number of undertakings have been given by the Minister, it is undesirable in principle that the further stages should be taken now; but I realise that this Bill is the first expression of a popular front we have seen, because it is the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour who have run things this morning. The only occasion when Amendments have been accepted has been when one or other of them nodded his head; and the rest of

us have only endorsed what they have done. I would like to congratulate them. [Interruption.] I take it we are discussing the Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Gentleman who thinks the House is going too fast is himself going faster than the House. We have only got to the question whether the Report stage should be taken now.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I raised a point of Order, as to whether we should take the Report stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member rose to a point of Order, and some remarks were made upon it; but if that matter is to be debated, as to whether the consideration stage is to be taken or not, that must be done on a Motion.

Mr. Moreing: On a futher point of Order. This is an extraordinary procedure, if I may say so—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have just pointed out that we cannot debate that matter. The hon. Member who rose just now thought that we were on the Third Reading.

Mr. Moreing: We have discussed this Bill in Committee this morning, certain Amendments have been made; now the proposal will come before us that in a few minutes we should discuss the Third Reading. We have had no opportunity of seeing a Paper with the Amendments on it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a point which has been already made, and I pointed out that if the question whether the Report stage is to be taken now or not is to be debated it must be on a Motion; otherwise I must put the Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."

1.39 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
If hon. Members will turn back to the Debate on Thursday of last week, they will note that it was clearly arranged in the House that all stages of the Bill should be taken to-day. That was arranged through the usual channels.

1.40 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: The Minister has just pointed out to us that on Thurs-


day of last week it was arranged that all stages should be taken to-day. At that time no Amendment had appeared on the Order Paper. (An hon. Member: "Oh, yes"). I think it will be found that I am quite right; it was not until the next day that Amendments appeared on the Paper. That makes a considerable difference in the arrangements of the House. A considerable number of Amendments have appeared to-day, they have been accepted, and the question now is whether we shall have a Report stage. I do not want to be obstreperous, but I think we must consider these things more carefully, and not rush them through. I withdraw my objection now.

Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered accordingly.

1.42 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
This is, as the atmosphere of the House shows, a Bill which, in the true sense, is approved in every quarter of the House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen), who moved a number of Amendments to-day, has performed a great public service in drawing attention to various points to which attention ought to be drawn. This Bill affects 250,000 owners of licences, and between 500,000 and 600,000 road haulage workers. Experience in connection with the Joint Industrial Council in the last five years has shown that the position in this industry has been very difficult indeed. Now agreement has been reached, and I look forward to seeing a very great change in the lot of the workers of this most important modern industry as the Bill works out in practice. I wish to thank all those, both in the House and outside, who, in the course of very long and detailed technical negotiations, have made it possible for us to produce the Bill now in shape so largely agreed in all quarters.

1.43 P.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I rise to support the Motion. While I agree that, in general, it is undesirable to take the Report stage of a Bill that has only been before the House as a Bill on behalf of the Government, this Bill has had many months, if not years, of discussion before

coming to the House, during which it has been possible to obtain a measure of agreement which has brought all parties together. I want to support the Bill, as one who, at any rate, since I came ashore, has lived with this industry. Many hundreds, if not thousands, think what a pity it is that an industry of this magnitude should be so poorly organised that it should have to have what is called safety legislation imposed upon it. That is not imposed because of the good employers, but because of the employers who will not face their responsibilities to their workers.
The Bill is obligatory as it stands to-day, yet it has within it the germs of voluntary organisation. I look forward to the day when the penal side can be done away with, and when the people whom I have seen for many years suffering up and down the roads will see, and their employers will see, the necessity and virtue of joining together in a voluntary association to affect what is right and equitable in this industry and its competitors in other industries. I am not in the habit of giving excessive praise, but I think it is only fair to thank the Minister and his staff, who have done so much behind the scenes, Mr. Edwards, who is the employers' representative on the Central Board, and my general secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin, who have put in much time to bring this to fruition. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place, it will be carried with facility, and without Amendment.

1.45 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I would not like to part with this Bill without saying how very glad I am that it has advanced on its way towards the Statute Book. I believe it will go a very long way towards creating a more harmonious position in the transport industry in general, and not merely the road haulage industry. It is a step towards getting a rates agreement and will, therefore, enable us to get a far more harmonious arrangement interlocking all the necessary transport in the country on lines which will be beneficial to the country as a whole. I am grateful to the Committee for the help that they have given, and I assure the House that when in Committee I moved a number of Amendments it was not done from the point of view of wrecking the Bill at all, but of improving it and elucidating from


the Minister some of the explanations which we required. I congratulate the Minister on the way he is helping this Bill on its way to the Statute Book and I give it my blessing. I assure him that I trust him to see that the things we want altering in the Bill will be altered in another place.

1.46 p.m.

Mr. Moreing: I do not want any misapprehension to get about that I am in any way opposed to this Bill. I believe it to be a very good and necessary Bill and one which will do great good to a very large portion of the community. We ought to congratulate the Minister of Labour, hon. Members opposite who have taken an interest in the Bill and also the movers of Amendments, all of whom have striven to get the Measure through this House. I must, however, protest against the Third Reading being taken to-day. I realise that it happens, because the Committee stage was got through extraordinarily quickly, that we are to have the Third Reading to-day, and that it is not a Bill on which there is any controversy. But I view with apprehension the way in which legislation is being forced through this House. At the beginning of every Session we have the King's Speech outlining a terrific programme of legislation, and then, half way through the Session, matters arise, perhaps in connection with industry or international affairs, which throw the time-table out of control. The consequence is that we get into such a position as that in which we are to-day, where we have a Bill, in which Amendments have been made in Committee, to be read the Third time without further consideration. These Bills are complicated enough when drawn in the first instance, and when Amendments have been made, they are still more complicated and difficult to understand.
We have not had an opportunity of seeing this Bill, as amended, in print. The Minister has given an undertaking that Amendments will be put into the

Bill in another place, and we shall be asked to consider those Amendments when the Bill comes back to the House. I say with respect that, when we come to consider Amendments from another place, they are read out from the Table, and it is sometimes difficult to follow them, and the Bill goes through, and is perhaps not the best that could have been drafted. Litigation arises out of it, and the matter goes into the court and the Judges in the High Court in their judgments, make comments on the way the Act has been drafted. I am not saying this with the object of obstructing the Bill at all, because I am entirely in favour of it, but it is treating the Members of this House with a certain lack of consideration to give us the Report stage, on which it has been impossible in practice to move any Amendments, and then to move the Third Reading. I hope in these serious times, when Parliamentary Government is being criticised so much all over the world and in this country, hon. Members will stand up for their rights in this matter.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WELSH CHURCH (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Mr. Owen Evans, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Arthur Reed, and Mr. Selley nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Welsh Church (Amendment) Bill [Lords].—[Mr. James Stuart.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.

Adjourned at Eleven Minutes before Two o'Clock, until Monday next, 30th May.